What does "I support the troops" actually mean ?

Actually your position has been untenable ever since you tried to back up from making an insulting comparison. Instead of apologizing you then tried to turn it into a debate about ethics---unsuccessfully I might add.

I do see where you're coming from dlowan, though I think the comparisons you used were not adequate to support your thesis.

Better comparisons to support your point of view would have been our invasion of Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti so far as humanitarian reasons were concerned or the earlier invasion of Grenada to stop a weapons build up.

In those cases, conscientious objectors to war theoretically would have been as vocal to protest military action. (They weren't but theoretically, they should have been.)

I thought the action in Somalia was dreadfully planned and executed and opposed the invasion of Haiti, but I was careful how I expressed my opinion while we had troops on the ground there.

That's all I ask for. Voluntary restraint toward the idea of not putting our troops at greater risk. I certainly would not suggest people should not criticize the President or any other aspect of government.

Lol! Perc - if you don't get stuff, do try not to just rant.

You seem not to grasp it, but this was always a discussion of ethics that I was attempting to have.

Sigh.

Some folk got it. I can't really see what is so difficult - but c'est la vie...

Well, I am glad you see where I am coming from. Sort of. Actually, the particular wars are irrelevant. I merely used extreme examples to ATTEMPT to make the point clear. I do not really have a "thesis" - simply an ethical position on the importance of protest against wars. Can you see the point? Even if you do not agree?

Can you see any import in the fact that there was not such opposition to Bosnia and Haiti? Many people believe Iraq II is a wrong war - NOT a humanitarian operation - this is why there is so much protest. You allow - to some extent, it seems, protest for unjust wars? Perhaps you do not?

As a matter of interest, what wars, if any, WOULD you see protest about as reasonable - once troops were on the ground? Is there a point at which you would see the wrongness of a war as outweighing the risk to troops?

Perception; why are you being obtuse? Our politics are not very far apart, and I don't have any trouble understanding the bunny.

Dlowan; I'd discuss it with you... but you've made your point in spades and I concur. While my heart is beating and my mind is functioning I will not stop thinking for myself for any government... or anyone else for that matter.

Thankee Bill!

Mebbe it is just being used to debate about ethics and such at a pretty abstract level, and used to illustrative means to test a belief?

I love stretching this stuff - maybe you can pretend to disagree Bill? Lol!

I know YOU won't think I am calling you a fascist!

I believe that the war in Iraq is a hopeless disaster. I believe the US troops are doing more harm than good. I believe that the sooner the US troops pull out of Iraq the better. Staying in Iraq just means more US deaths that are not at all worth it.

These are my beliefs, and this is probably not the thread to discuss whether they are right or wrong.

But, given my beliefs, what does supporting the troops mean?

To me it means doing everthing that is possible to get them out of this mess.

It is time to bring them home.

"It is time to bring them home."

deb

I think you are not likely to get the clarification you seek. Fox seems as if she doesn't wish to engage the question at the level of ethical principles as it might (it will) leave her position open to contradiction.

ebrown

Yes, you have it. If the ethical concern is for the troops (rather than the overall project of a war), then it may well be the case that the more ethical choice is to do whatever one can to bring an end to the project. Had we left Viet Nam a year or three of five earlier, many people on both sides now dead would still be alive.

It means you don't blame the soldiers because they're in the position of having to obey the orders of a worthless mass murdering fascist like the shrubl

To support the troops means to me that these men and women who choose a job as a mean to an end in an almost jobless economy are following orders. Politicians make wars soldier, very young people for the most part, risk their lives fighting them.

I support the troops just like I support any other government worker, like the air controllers in all US airports, OSHA-MSHA who protect construction workers and miners, and other federal workers who keep us safe in more way than one can count. These people, federal employees, the military is not seperate are just doing their job.

Yeah - well, not everyone likes to debate these things. I am giving up. I would like to really discuss her position properly with Fox though - I think it an interesting position - because it seems so common - and one I have debated fiercely with Lusatian.

I understand why people want to hold it, too - that is why I want to push the debate as far as it will go. Sigh.

deb

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you weren't exactly aware of what was going on. I was really just sending a brotherly wave.

Oh, I know! Thankee.

Dlowan writes


Did you miss my post several posts back in which I said:

Of course I see that there are immoral and/or unjust wars. I do not think the initial motive for invading Iraq was either immoral or unjust. As I said, everybody in the free world knew Saddam had WMD when we went in.

However he managed to move, hide, destroy or whatever the hell he did with them, our motives for war were fine. Now I see it as our moral duty to not leave the Iraqi people with more instablity and worse tyrants than they had before.

And I see it as a critical practical tactic to not allow terrorists yet another victory in which their tactics demoralized and intimidated a weak people into bending to their will.

And I see it as supporting the troops to not put our troops on the ground at greater risk by giving the terrorists that kind of aid and comfort.

Dlowan writes:


These were "Clinton wars" not "Bush wars". I have not a doubt in the world had they been "Bush wars" the hue and cry and whining and caterwauling would have risen to a huge crescendo across the land. The same people who supported Clinton in those unprovoked invasions of other countries are the same people damning Bush now.

And yes, many on the right criticized Clinton for invading countries that were absolutely no threat to anybody but themselves, but you didn't perceive so much opposition because I think most of us were conscious that our troops were there and we waited until they were out of harms way to be extremely public about our criticisms.

Also, since Clinton was a darling of most of the American mainstream media, you didn't see so many negative and inflammatory headlines as you do now.

Dlowan writes:


These were "Clinton wars" not "Bush wars". I have not a doubt in the world had they been "Bush wars" the hue and cry and whining and caterwauling would have risen to a huge crescendo across the land. The people who supported Clinton in those unprovoked invasions of other countries are the same people damning Bush now.

And yes, many on the right criticized Clinton for invading countries that were absolutely no threat to anybody but themselves, but you didn't perceive so much opposition because I think most of us were conscious that our troops were there and we waited until they were out of harms way to be extremely public about our criticisms.

Also, since Clinton was a darling of most of the American mainstream media, you didn't see so many negative and inflammatory headlines as you do now.

Bill
I think you are too quick to exonerate Dlowan for her inflamatory comparison. It's not that I can't grasp the reasoning of her argument, I object to her lack of sensitivity. She uses her sharp tongue sometimes with precision and at other times like a "nuke".

As you know we have a little goodie in our constitution which states that during time of war, anyone guilty of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" can be charged with treason. It was during the Vietnam war that I was first confronted with what I considered treasonous acts by Jane Fonda and her crowd and then later on with others such as John Kerry.

I take a reductionist position on war and judge it strictly according to what I consider the intent of the war. If I consider the intent honorable and justifiable, then I believe it is treasonous to publicly criticize the war effort especially by people who have influence. I considered the "intent" of stopping the spread of communism in southeast asia honorable and it is now proven that the dissenters through the culpable media, influenced the American public to the point where they stopped supporting the war and therefore handed victory to our enemy. This to me is traitorous but because "War" was never officially declared it is a moot argument.

The same applies here in the war in Iraq. I and more than half of the American public have judged the "Intent" of the war in Iraq as honorable but here again the Official declaration of war was never asked for by the President and therefore never issued. People say that we are fighting two different wars but actually it is the same war but in several different locations. If we are forced out of Iraq by the dissenters, which then becomes the will of the American people, then I believe the belief of the terrorists that we are weak andhave no stomach for war, will be vindicated. Therefore, any action by the opposition to the war will provide " aid and comfort" to the terrorists.

It is one thing for you or me to criticize the actions and tactical mistakes made during a war. It is quite another to give aid and comfort to the enemy by prominent people and elected officials of the opposition.

I have no idea what Dlowan considers a traitorous action against her country. Perhaps she believes the geographic position of Australia, which makes it akin to being another planet, and their very strict immigration policies will provide enough of a shield against the work of Radical Muslims. On her "planet" she may never be confronted with treason
I don't really care about her beliefs because she is certainly entitled to them but when she dares to compare the actions of this country to nazi Germany, even during a polemic exercise, then she should be challenged.

If I ever see proof that the actions of our gov't are not in the best interests of the American people then you will see me actively protesting.
I remain convinced that any mistakes made during either Vietnam or in Iraq were human failures in tactical decisions and not moral or ethical failures.

And Bill, for the time being I will consider your use of "obtuse" as a jibe, not an affront because from what I have read of your posts our politics are not that far apart.

Perception: I agree almost entirely with your last post, but don't see how it relates to Dlowan's request for a finer definition of principles. Principles need to be solid enough that when attacked from various angles they remain defensible. By using the most extreme example available (Nazis), Dlowan knocked the foundation out from under a faulty principle. There are indeed plateaus at which a commander in chief should be removed, let alone criticized. I don't think anyone here really wants the government to define at which plateau criticism becomes inappropriate, let alone treason. People have to decide this for themselves, and as much as I personally disagree with all the dissention, I nevertheless recognize the right and need for the dissenters to be entitled to their opinions. As I'm sure you know; that is in the constitution as well.

Taken in context, there was nothing inflammatory about her comparison either. You shouldn't accuse someone of insensitivity, for an inference that was never implied in the first place. Example:
While doing some landscaping Tom tells his neighbor Jerry that it is going to take forever to plant flowers on a mound of earth he had fashioned. Jerry, seeing that it's not that big of a job, says "come on Tom, you are making mountains out of molehills". Tom, now insulted shouts his reply, "how dare you call my mound a molehill!"

I'm glad I didn't upset you by using the word obtuse. If I had; I'd regret it. I do find it interesting that, because our politics are so similar, you can look past my deliberate shot while at the same time attacking someone else, who's politics don't coincide with yours, for an unintentional "shot". This is a contradiction that will disappear after correcting a faulty premise.

Bill

Please define for me : At what point and under what circumstances does organized dissention become treason?